The orders of termination were not termination simpliciter. Consequently, this is the outcome of arbitrary exercise of power in a malafide way and as such, the High Court Division was justified in making the Rule absolute declaring the orders of termination to have been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect.

There was an inquiry about the appointment of the writ-petitioner and pursuant to the said inquiry, the writ-petitioner were terminated from service. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ-petitioner were terminated from service and in fact, they were dismissed from service in the garb of termination

The Management/Executive Committee of the Orphanage had no authority to deal with the land other than for the purpose stipulated in the indentures. Those persons at the helm of the affairs of the Orphanage could not arrogate to themselves the authority to transfer the title in the property, which they themselves did not have. The Orphanage was given the property on a short term lease, which was apparent from the lease deeds. As long as these lease deeds existed and as long as the terms were not altered by the executant of the deeds none had the authority to deal with the land other than the purpose for which the lease was granted.

After 10 years of their voluntary retirement and after receiving full financial benefits as offered the prayers for reinstatement cannot be termed as reasonable and fair. After having applied for voluntary retirement of service and taken the money it is not open to contend that they exercised the option under any kind of coercion and undue influence. Who had accepted the ex gratia payment or any other benefit under the scheme, could not have resiled therefrom. It became past and closed transaction. The writ petitioners having accepted the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand.

Dying declaration cannot be considered as the sole basis for conviction and awarding sentence to the appellant, specifically in the absence of any of the witnesses who were present in the hospital during the time when the alleged dying declaration was made by such a critically injured person who was under intensive care and not supposed to be in conscious. As such the finding of the High Court Division that ‘the prosecution has clearly established the motive of the case and the oral dying declaration has also been supported by the medical evidence and other circumstances and materials on record’ is not sustainable in law.